Preview Changes vs Hawthorn

[Balls In]

Disgraceful. Compared to the existing ones, it can't be medium if he's not injured, and he isn't. Challenge it. No different to Zuurhar which was graded low.

Bellchambers fined for running past the ball and a high hip and shoulder, Redman fined for back-heeling a bloke, Gov suspended for a legal hip and shoulder inside the field of play because a chair was near the boundary? Doesn't add up.

How can it be high contact?

 

[HoneyBadger35]

How can it be high contact?

The Zuurhar one was deemed high because his head hit the fence, so I assume that's what they've said here.

I hope we challenge, but the only challengable part of it to me seems to be the level of impact. Given he's not injured, we might have a chance. Given he returned to the game but was then shut down for at least a half, we might not.

Re-posting this, I don't see how it's any worse than the Zuurhar one which was graded low impact and therefore a fine.

 

[its_dave]

Why?

Why rush NN back? You think the team desperately needs him?

Bringing him back in the Derby gives him more time to ease back into the game and lifts the excitement of the derby to a higher plane.

 

[Antomonic]

B: Hurn Barass Sheppard
HB: Duggan McGovern* Jetta
C: Hutchings** Yeo Gaff
HF: Rioli Darling Cripps
FF: Ryan Kennedy Allen
R: Hickey Shuey Sheed
Int: Schofield*** Redden Petrucelli Cameron

*Assuming he gets off when WC challenge the ban
**To play wing, I don't think he'll tag anyone at Hawthorn, and they'll prefer him to Masten.
***To play as a small, I prefer him to Nelson.
So that's:
In: Rioli, Barass
Out: Masten, Nelson

 

[Balls In]

The Zuurhar one was deemed high because his head hit the fence, so I assume that's what they've said here.

I hope we challenge, but the only challengable part of it to me seems to be the level of impact. Given he's not injured, we might have a chance. Given he returned to the game but was then shut down for at least a half, we might not.

Re-posting this, I don't see how it's any worse than the Zuurhar one which was graded low impact and therefore a fine.

We have to appeal, what an absolute joke. The AFL blatently passing its duty of care onto players.

 

[Ishmael_]

Phwoar, I'm excited to watch both Yeo and Nic Nat hunt in the middle.

 

[Royals]

we are the Eagles, Gov wont get off, they love clipping our wings.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

if the club doesnt challenge we're letting them get away with this bias.

there has been a precedent set before hand with frawley. wce can argue this is less than that

not our fault guelfi hit a ****en chair.

 

[The Passenger]

No problem with it being high contact because he hit his head and that is how it has been assessed in the past. You can't ask for consistency from the MRP and then say Gov should be considered body contact in the same breath.

The comparison to Frawley's hit is not quite right. But it is almost identical to Zurhaar (North #44) in the above video and that was deemed low impact.

I can't see any world where Gov's hit is of any more force than Zurhaar's.

I'd be very disappointed if the club didn't challenge that grading.

 

[mad_eagle]

I sense an epic tribunal thread...

 

[campaigner___]

How to I delete west coast eagles from the AFL?

Fold the ****ing club I'm done. Let's start our own ****ing competition and not invited those ****ing campaigners **** you, you ****ing dicks

 

[Rowan18]

We can also challenge the careless contact charge. McGovern makes contact with him within the field of play, while he still has the ball. It's not like he has deliberately pushed him when he is over the line. The whole charge just seems to stem from the fact he hurt himself when sliding toward the fence - that is the stadium's issue for not having a large enough boundary/too much shit lying around to bump into.

 

[Balls In]

Also disagree with the careless grading. McGovern did everything that would be expected of any player in that circumstance. It was an accident and this is just a bullshit witchhunt.

 

[HoneyBadger35]

We can also challenge the careless contact charge. McGovern makes contact with him within the field of play, while he still has the ball. It's not like he has deliberately pushed him when he is over the line. The whole charge just seems to stem from the fact he hurt himself when sliding toward the fence - that is the stadium's issue for not having a large enough boundary/too much **** lying around to bump into.

It's careless, that will never change. There's years of precedent of pushes in the field of play that result in someone hitting the fence being deemed careless.

"A Player’s conduct will be regarded as Careless where his conduct is not intentional, but constitutes a breach of the duty of care owed by the Player to all other Players." It will never not be careless, unfortunately. Low impact is the way to go here.

 

[twinkletoes#17]

KNEW IT! G A G F

Not enough expletives available in the english language to adequately convey what I think of the MRO and the AFL right now.

We better fight this one.

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

What penalty does the plastic chair get??? Spewing if it gets off scott free.

 

[RookiePick]

The AFL is a total farce. Different rules for the VFL clubs and the interstate sides.

They have realised they can get away with it now and are blatant with it.

 

[Biggie]

Please please please challenge

Not for the team, but another epic tribunal thread.

 

[Max zero]

Please please please challenge

Not for the team, but another epic tribunal thread.

Ill be there with abusive streamers on.

 

[Balls In]

Please please please challenge

Not for the team, but another epic tribunal thread.

Have we not appealed yet, wtf?

 

[Figure09]

Knew it! We won last year what do you expect? Christinan ex pie player

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[MrWoollie]

Petch has a long long way to go before he is considered a good footballer and this is why they are pumping games into him, he does some very good things and he also disappears for long periods. He is on his learning journey and while we can keep him in the side I think they should.
But I don't think he is close to being in our best 22 when it counts and when no excuses can be offered.
We only need 3 small forwards and we have them in Cripps, Rioli and Ryan.
Just my opinion though.

Generally agree but a couple points.

With rotations we need 4 rather than 3 small forwards. I see these (long term) as Cripps, Rioli, Ryan and Cameron.
Petrucelle was recruited (long term) as a wing. Simmo said as much last year a couple of times. He is now reaching that stage where his tank has improved, his running both ways has improved and he's getting closer to having tackles stick. To me it's getting close to the point where he moves to the wing. With ball in hand he will be at half forward before we know it anyway.

This would allow this week to...
Rioli comes in - Petrucelle moves to the wing - Masten moves to WAFL
NicNat comes in - Allen or Hickey miss. It depends on how much game time we think NN will play. If we want a #1 ruck with NN playing as maybe 40% ruck/30% forward/30% bench then Allen misses. If we think NN can play 60% ruck/10-20% forward/20-30% bench then Hickey misses and Allen fills the secondary ruck role. It's pretty harsh on either to miss, but someone has to.
Barrass comes in - Gov goes out. If we appeal this ******** suspension and win, it's Schoey misses out. Again harsh, but if a KP back comes in, a KP back goes out.

 

[beatlesmith]

OUT: Masten, Allen, Schofield (or Gov, if he's suspended)
IN: Rioli, Naitanui, Barrass

1. Masten was fine, but none of our small forwards can be dropped on those performances. We'll have to get creative in terms of midfield rotations but Cripps and Rioli are perfectly capable of putting in a shift there. With that being said, this wouldn't be a bad game to keep Masten in for, as Hawthorn boast a number of great outside runners (Scully, Henderson, Smith) that we'll have to cope with.
2. Allen is struggling to produce. Lots of almost marks and almost goals. He was more involved on Thursday (career high in touches and much more work up the ground) than he has been but he can't keep Naitanui out. Playing Hickey, Allen and Naitanui together will make us too tall, particularly when we can expect NN to be underdone for the time being.
3. Tough on Schoey but Barrass is just that bit better, and a better matchup on Roughead/McEvoy. Hawthorn aren't tall enough to play both. Of course if Gov is suspended the point is moot.

 

[wce4premiership]

I think Nelson is only really in competition with Cole/Jetta/Duggan (Shep has no competition). Can't see Schofield, Barrass, Gov and Hurn all playing. The problem might be solved if they're too soft to challenge the McGovern ban, in which case maybe Barrass is a straight swap? Nelson was pretty good last night. Couldn't have done any more.

I'd even give Barrass a second week in the WAFL if Gov gets off, but eventually he's going to be playing AFL. Two weeks to have a run around isn't bad. Schofield has been quite good recently so it's hard to drop him.

Petruccelle only had one tackle but he shut down as many runs as Cameron did, maybe even more. His defensive game was spot on. Should have had more goals. Cameron might be straight out despite his good game, Petrol doesn't need a rest after the bye.

Hutchings is a liability with the ball in his vicinity but dam he's a great tagger. Just plays it perfectly, so committed to the team. Selection could depend on matchups but I'd rather him playing the first defender back role over Masten, because if a switch needs to be made mid game at least the option is there.

 

[amazingjoshy]

No problem with it being high contact because he hit his head and that is how it has been assessed in the past. You can't ask for consistency from the MRP and then say Gov should be considered body contact in the same breath.

The comparison to Frawley's hit is not quite right. But it is almost identical to Zurhaar (North #44) in the above video and that was deemed low impact.

I can't see any world where Gov's hit is of any more force than Zurhaar's.

I'd be very disappointed if the club didn't challenge that grading.

We'll challenge I reckon. There's a clear argument against the ruling. Can't be high AND medium impact (if Guelfi didn't fail the concussion test).

Hopefully Barrass plays a blinder in the WAFL and we're covered either way.

Hutch to tag Smith or Henderson I reckon. Swans are tagging Henderson with Clarke tonight, don't mind it as a target. Masten out, Hutch back to mids and Rioli in. NN in for Allen. Barrass in if the Gov challenge doesn't work, give him another week in the WAFL if it does.